We're the Only Ones...

...Shooting Ourself in the Foot Enough

The officer was shot in the foot by his own weapon, according to police. The shooting happened...

Shoot happens?

...Not Going to the Dogs Enough

A 20 year veteran of the Miami police force has been charged with animal cruelty in connection with the death of his K9 partner who starved to death.

I thought if anyone killed a K-9, they treated it like killing an officer...?

...Copping a Feel Enough

The officer had mistakenly slapped the behind of a woman in Vilan's group, Puma said, thinking it was someone he knew. Puma said it was a mistake and the officer apologized.

But Nicole Kitley, a friend of Vilan's, said it didn't happen quite like that.

"He slapped me really hard," she said, and when she turned around, "He said, 'Oh, I thought you were my sister.'"

"I could tell he was very drunk," she said, adding the officer did not apologize....

The officer drew his gun and fired what witnesses estimated at five to eight shots.

What, you don't slap your sister on the be-hind at bars and then end up shooting people?

...Kuffing Kiddies Enough

The parents of two Bronx preschoolers are suing the city, charging that their kids were tossed out of class - and handcuffed by a school-safety officer - for refusing to take a nap.

I used to cuff my kids all the time too when they were that age.
[Via DONE! SEO]

One of these days, I'm going to be able to get done posting without a bunch of "Only Ones" stories falling into my lap. I repeat myself--honest--I do not go out looking for these.

Number 9...Number 9...

The woman accused of running a prostitution ring allegedly patronized by Eliot Spitzer told one of her call girls that the New York governor had been known to "ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe." [More]

What, like disarm?

This self-serving subversive SOB has been an enemy of Liberty throughout his public life. Here's hoping the worst that can happen to him does.

What is it about these freakish monsters, who can't (or won't) control themselves, that drives them so to control the rest of us? Aside from raging vindictive envy of the healthy by the diseased?

A GOC Rebuttal

Sam Parades responds:

I will save everybody the trouble of having to wait to call in on "Let's Talk Guns" on WS Radio to ask questions.

I have been fighting to save our Second Amendment rights since 1976. Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America are the oldest pro-gun political action committees in the country and have been fighting for over 33 years to protect our rights.

It would be nice if folks who have questions about what they read in the press would take the time to call the source if they have any questions. But I guess cracks and comments are protected by the First Amendment...

GOC believes that the Second Amendment is inviolable. Law-abiding citizens shouldn't even have to go through background checks or waiting periods. These laws mean that the government is in essence granting a license to it's citizens to exercise a right if they can be proven to meet certain criteria and you and I know that depending on who is in power that criteria can change.

Our Founding Fathers also gave us a system where we, as citizens could impact the laws that are passed if we don't like them. That is what we do. We do not advocate breaking the law but instead work to change the laws that are unconstitutional.

If anybody has an issue with any of the political actions that we have taken in the past 33+ years feel free to let me know.

For any other specific questions please feel free to contact me at samp@gunownersca.com . I would be happy to respond.

By the way, if anybody is interested you can go to either GOA's website http://www.gunowners.org/ or our website to read the Amicus Curiae we wrote regarding the Heller vs. DC case that is before the US Supreme Court.

If the court declares the Second Amendment an individual right in any way, we will change much of our focus to fighting all of the gun control laws on the books in court.

Thank you for allowing me to respond.

OK, now my turn.

With all due respect, your past legislative activities or your support for Heller are not at issue here. I focused on one very narrow objection to a quotation attributed to you. The statement I called into question was:

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said he hopes the technology puts an end to a nettlesome problem. Too often, he said, people unaware that past convictions barred them from owning guns would buy one and not be stopped, then face state enforcement. Paredes said the group has "no real objection" to the system.

"The law has to be obeyed," he said. "If you don't like the law, you work to change it."

Pretty much the way most blogs work, we take newspaper articles or such and comment on relevant opinions. GOC posts links to many news articles on your site--do you vet every one to make sure no one has been misquoted? And why would you expect private inquiries when you make public comments? I don't for what I say.

Your public comments affect more than you, and as such, deserve a public airing, as opposed to private emails most will never be privy to.

Were you misquoted? You didn't say so. If you were, have you written a letter to the Tri-Valley Herald demanding a retraction and correction?

Your rebuttal comment here indicates you meant every word of it. Which means, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, so feel free to correct me--if California bans guns, your position will be to encourage your members to turn them in and work on changing the majority demographics.

That's a contradiction from your stated belief that "GOC believes that the Second Amendment is inviolable." You just showed us that it is, and that your position is to proclaim your submission to the violation.

Chest-thumping about how pro-gun you are aside, that to me is not leadership. That's surrender. And I just can't motivate myself to follow a self-proclaimed leader into defeat.

So no, I don't think your reply to my post should end the discussion, either here or on your radio show. I think that discussion ought to be just getting started.

Now I understand as a lobbying group, you can't be out there preaching civil disobedience, and I wouldn't expect you to jeopardize your access to the legislature. What gets me is, you went out of your way to affirm mandatory obedience when it wasn't necessary to do so.

That's what I took exception to, and still do. Your only message when you get a microphone in front of you ought to be against gun control and for freedom.

Instead you call for obedience and then tell me you're a leader. Man, I sure am glad Rosa Parks waited around for lobbyists to change things, aren't you?

So how about before we get any deeper we get a simple "yes" or "no": Did the newspaper article misquote you? Should we ask the reporter and post his reply?

And finally, Sam, yes, "cracks and comments are protected by the First Amendment."

Those of us fighting on a different front aren't so off-handedly dismissive of that.

You have total freedom to say whatever you want here to demonstrate why I am wrong.

We're the Only Ones Cashing Out Enough

Retiring a few years early will leave 59-year-old Police Chief Carmen LaBruno with a comfortable landing - and may cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars...

After 37 years on the Hoboken force, LaBruno's annual salary is $210,794. And when his retirement becomes official, he would be entitled to an annual state pension of around $147,555...

[H]e will also likely be entitled to termination pay - five days for each year for his 37 years, officials said. That's another 185 days at around $810 per day, or $149,850...

LaBruno was photographed posing with a topless woman during the 2006 trip to New Orleans, one that SWAT officers said was to provide security at Mardi Gras. But the SWAT team was not authorized by law enforcement officers in Louisiana, and in fact, city officials say, LaBruno told them that he was on vacation.

Pi...uh..."Only Ones" at the trough. New Jersey sure takes care of its own, doesn't it, all the while maintaining the highest ethical standards?

See, you do work for them. What, you thought it was the other way around?

[Via Bruce W. Krafft]

Who's Paranoid?

Whose Paranoid notices some "curious" site visitors .

A "Crackdown" on What?

University of New Mexico police are cracking down on people who are trying to sell guns on campus....

They set up an undercover operation at an apartment complex. During the sting, police said Gallegos pulled out a glock [sic] handgun.

Apparently the "Authorized Journalists" think "Glock" is a type of gun rather than a trade name.
What I don't get from this is whether this is some guy selling stolen weapons out of his trunk or if this was just a legal private sale that's being blown out of proportion.

Another account says:

...Gallegos pulled a gun on an undercover officer when he went inside, and that's what led to the arrest.

So based on that we can automatically assume this wasn't a case of self defense because he didn't know the guy scaring him was a cop?

There aren't enough facts here to make any kind of definitive judgment, but based on the partnership between the "watchdog press" and those they're supposed to be monitoring, we can be pretty certain about what they want us to believe, pretty much eloquently expressed by students Koranyi and Willis.

[Via ChareltonHest]

Facebook Poll Somewhat Misleading

Somewhat Intelligent comments on a Facebook 2A poll that, while somewhat encouraging, somewhat misses the point...

Didn't I just get in trouble over this...?

The Source

The real trade here is guns for little more than a state-determined temporary extension of our lives on our knees — and the lives of our children and their descendents on their knees as well. Despite how repugnant, how low such a choice is, there is apparently no shortage of people willing to make it.

If you do nothing else today, go read this essay. And share it far and wide.

Good stuff. As dark as things may appear, there also seems to be a growing demand for real Liberty. That's gotta be an unsettling proposition for some.

We're living in an exciting time, with unknown potential.

It truly is up to us.

[Via Plug Nickel Times via End the War on Freedom]

Couched in Tyranny

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

In other words, the nitwit wants to make this illegal:

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying.

Because we all know state enforcement by armed agents who have no qualms about destroying a citizen rather than respecting the First Amendment is so much more preferable than "cyber bullying. "

How do dolts like this get elected dogcatcher?

Feel free to leave anonymous comments below so I can forward them to this wienerhead. Just make sure you don't intimidate or threaten, but it is OK to bully just enough to make him cry...

[Via Chris Horton]

Aussie "Law-Abiding" to be Harassed--Criminals to be Exempt

VICTORIAN police are planning a crackdown on gun owners. They are set to check whether 18,000 of the state's registered gun owners have stored their firearms properly.

I wonder how much manpower and money will be tied up with this foolishness?

[Via Bruce Mills]

Cult of Mammon vs. Cult of Set

The Internal Revenue Service may need to send The Wall Street Journal a finder's fee after the newspaper's front-page article today on the alleged political activities of Sen. Barack Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, activities that may violate IRS rules against churches advocating for particular political candidates.

Cool--a religious war. Those are always fun.

Dare we hope to see Snuffy's Minicult drawn into the battle?

And funny--what with their concern on all things breaching that "wall of separation," I hear excuses, rather than a battle cry coming from our old pals at Americans United Against Non-Marxist Religion.

They reserve their wrath for a Houston evangelical.

Just so we're clear: Obama-supporting church crosses the line, no problem. Traditional Christians do it and Whammo!

Of course, this isn't the first time WarOnGuns has exposed these characters as left wing hypocrites. And sadly, it won't be the last.

[Via Federal Farmer]

This Day in History: March 11

I am well convinced, there is no reason to dread the descent you speak of, and that these little desultory motions have no serious design, but are only intended to divert our attention from the important objects which ought to engage it. It would be inconsistent with their general purpose, to diminish their mainbody, by occupying posts, which could be of no use towards facilitating the enterprises they more immediately have in contemplation. At any rate, I cannot think of straitening myself, where the danger is pressing and certain, to give succours where there is little or nothing to apprehend.